Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Sleuth


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Celebrity Sleuth

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article fails to establish notability. Contains a single, rather trivial mention in a book. EuroPride (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete- I don't even know how this article hasn't been eyed for deletion in a whole year; the subject is clearly not notable. I suggest a speedy delete per WP:SNOW.   Raa   G   gio  (talk)   16:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Given the number of newspaper articles and books[ at least mentioning the magazine revealed through the Google News and Books searches. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Magazine has been deemed redundant as some international network of connected "sites" on a "web" throughout the Earth let you seek out everything this magazine provides for a cost, instead for free if you smartly use a system of search terms on a site named for a large number to find said pictorial representations of respected actresses performing without costume. Also, magazine has few sources beyond the usual ones found on questionable sites of little stature.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Redundancy or obsolescence are not negative indicators of notability. Even if the site is now obsolete, notability is not temporary. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.